New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side

[raidermatt]

Why do you get to set the bottom?

I don't. I asked you a question.

Interesting that you ignored the part of the post that pointed out you were inserting your own beliefs into other's statements.

There have been good creations and and bad creations. The good news is that they are still creating. Some of the creations don't meet your personal standards. That's unfortunate.

What's unfortunate is you continue to ignore what is being said and once again inject your personal beliefs about the posters.

I guess you weren't watching the Orlando Channel 6 news tonight.

Interesting.

 

[MassJester]

I've never said that every decision is good. Some are not, but then I've not know any organization to make all good decisions.

Some of the projects that Disney has embarked upon are fundamentally flawed. Some are brilliantly conceived. A movie doesn't sell well, or a resort idea is not a success--these things will happen.

Focusing on the failures with a religous ferver may be attractive to some, it seems a bit circular and non-productive to me.

As far as the public running away from Disney, you are able to point to individual projects that have done poorly, but on balance that does not appear to be so.

 

[MassJester]

I don't. I asked you a question.

You asked if I could point to comments where your prior hyperbole matched mine (by "level") -- why should it have to?

Interesting that you ignored the part of the post that pointed out you were inserting your own beliefs into other's statements.

The general them of all of your "The Mouse is Falling" discussions is that Disney doesn't approach the management of its company with the same creative dedication that it used to and therefore it will fail as we all turn our backs on their mediocre efforts. All of these threads run together and it's all alot of horse feathers.

What's unfortunate is you continue to ignore what is being said and once again inject your personal beliefs about the posters.


Interesting.

Well, you're just wrong.

 

[DancingBear]

There have been good creations and and bad creations. The good news is that they are still creating.

Since they largely dismantled Imagineering, and were doing the same to Feature Animation at least until the Pixar deal, it's really not clear how much creating they're doing.

 

[Another Voice]

As far as the public running away from Disney, you are able to point to individual projects that have done poorly, but on balance that does not appear to be so.

Platitudes backed up by unsupported generalities all with a vague morally superior attitude that's attempting to conceal the lack of real understanding of the issue. I’ve think we’ve finished with the Turing test here. There’s nothing on the other side except a program that spits out random clichés.

So let’s see if this helps the discussion at all:

A. On balance, the billion dollar failure of California Adventure has been offset by __________.


B. The commercial failure and shutting down of Disney Feature Animation and purchasing a company of former employees for seven billion dollars is made profitable because ____________________.

C. Selling off 300 acres of the company’s most important asset to a direct competitor in high end resorts, rather than easily entering that market yourself is a “good business move” when _______________________.

Please run the keywords through the usually subroutines so we can get the latest “every thing is wonderful, you people are all negative, I don’t have to give facts because I’m better than you are” answer.

 

[MassJester]

A. On balance, the billion dollar failure of California Adventure has been offset by __________.


B. The commercial failure and shutting down of Disney Feature Animation and purchasing a company of former employees for seven billion dollars is made profitable because ____________________.

C. Selling off 300 acres of the company’s most important asset to a direct competitor in high end resorts, rather than easily entering that market yourself is a “good business move” when _______________________.

A. I don't concede that it is a failure, so no offset is required.
B. Pixar will bring in more profit than it cost, and so no offset is required.
C. 1) they didn't sell it off, 2) you have no idea what the business arrangement is and so to label "competition" assumes facts not in evidence, and 3) whether it is easier for Disney to bring the service that FS is providing or not also assumes facts not in evidence.

You pronouncements to the contrary not withstanding, of course.

 

[EUROPACL]

A. I don't concede that it is a failure, so no offset is required.
B. Pixar will bring in more profit than it cost, and so no offset is required.
C. 1) they didn't sell it off, 2) you have no idea what the business arrangement is and so to label "competition" assumes facts not in evidence, and 3) whether it is easier for Disney to bring the service that FS is providing or not also assumes facts not in evidence.

You pronouncements to the contrary not withstanding, of course.

 

[MassJester]

Just the sort of fact driven response I'd expect from the down with Disney crowd.

 

[EUROPACL]

Just the sort of fact driven response I'd expect from the down with Disney crowd.

No facts given to start with ...none needed in picture response. Besides I love Disney.

 

[MassJester]

Perhaps you're right, the sooner the DisneyDoom crowd pulls their heads out of the...sand, things will get a lot clearer.

 

[Another Voice]

California Adventure not a failure? Disney doesn't even pay people to write things like that anymore.

Let us know when you want to discuss facts. Until then please continue to think happy thoughts and don't let facts interfere with your opinion.

 

[MassJester]

I should fit right in here.

 

[raidermatt]

Well, you're just wrong.

That's some compelling evidence there. However, you'll forgive me if I don't concede. The "nuh ah, you" thing never worked real well in elementary school, so I see no need to regress back to it now.

A. I don't concede that it is a failure, so no offset is required.

Well, we know you are not one of those "researchers" they talked about on the news, becuase even Disney isn't claiming success on this one anymore.

B. Pixar will bring in more profit than it cost, and so no offset is required.

And how long do your calculations tell you it will take for Pixar to bring in $7 billion in profit?

Never mind the fact that they only had to pay the $7 billion because of many bad decsions in the years leading up to the purchase.

1) they didn't sell it off,

Actually, a portion is being sold off, I just haven't seen the exact size of that parcel. The fractional ownership vacation homes are going to be owned by the purchasers. That's why Disney is de-annexing that portion from the RCID. It's going back to Orange county so the new owners do not get voting rights in the RCID.

2) you have no idea what the business arrangement is and so to label "competition" assumes facts not in evidence

They are separate companies. Regardless of the business arrangement, they are competitors and unless one is getting the shaft, profits (assuming the venture is profitable) will be split.

3) whether it is easier for Disney to bring the service that FS is providing or not also assumes facts not in evidence.

True, how easy you believe this would be does depend on how capable you believe Disney to be. Looks like in this area you are actually the greater Disney-basher.

 

[MassJester]

Your statement had no factual basis, and so I saw no need to provide anything else than "you're wrong" in rebuttal.

Perhaps you have seen P/L numbers that show CA to be a bust--I have not. If so, please share them.

Pixar will take time to pay off, but pay off it will, and will not be a competitive force.

Similarly situated companies (like Disney & FS) enter into joint ventures quite regularly that are mutually beneficial and do not consititute surrender to a competitor.

 

[YoHo]

Bob Iger stood up in a Shareholders meeting and Said that California Adventure was "underperforming" or some other corporate speak version of failure. He FRACKIN SAID IT TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS!

 

[BRERALEX]

http://www.thedisneyblog.com/tdb/2007/02/california_adve.html

Less than a year ago, Disney's chief executive officer, Robert Iger went on record during the company's annual stockholder meeting on March 10th, 2006, when someone asked about a potential third park being built in Anaheim. "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful", Iger said, referring to California Adventure. "In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged."

and
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...61DC-C5C2-4700-885B-0C954E4AC657}&siteid=mktw

thought maybe it's a better source.

 

[raidermatt]

Your statement had no factual basis, and so I saw no need to provide anything else than "you're wrong" in rebuttal.

You added stuff about Walt when the man wasn't even mentioned. That's a fact.

I know you have no answer, but you'd be better off just letting it go.

Perhaps you have seen P/L numbers that show CA to be a bust--I have not. If so, please share them.

I've heard and read Disney execs admit the park is underperforming and needs work.

I've seen pricing promotions that gave admissions away for free.

Again, your fighting a battle even Disney has given up on.

Pixar will take time to pay off, but pay off it will, and will not be a competitive force.

It won't pay off as well as if Disney had invested properly in its own animation, both CGI and hand-drawn, at any point in the years leading up to the acquisition. Disney was forced into a corner because of its own mismanagement. $7 billion will take a LONG time to recover.

Similarly situated companies (like Disney & FS) enter into joint ventures quite regularly that are mutually beneficial and do not consititute surrender to a competitor.

Really? Let's see. Through WDW, Disney has:

-The largest vacation resort in the world that also happens to be self contained.
-4 theme parks, 2 water parks a shopping and entertainment district, 10's of thousands of hotel rooms, etc.
-A reputation for immersive themeing that makes its guests forget the real world.

Who exactly is the similarly situated company that, like Disney, is bringing in an outside hotel brand?

 

[DancingBear]

A. I don't concede that it is a failure, so no offset is required.

MJ, since we're often on the same side over on the Debate, err, Community Board, perhaps I should use a reference you'll follow and say this is like holding onto the existence of WMD even after the White House has stopped. Disney's not pursuing any "placemaking" plans at any other parks, are they?

B. Pixar will bring in more profit than it cost, and so no offset is required.

But the purchase of Pixar at such a cost was necessitated by a string of Eisner-era decisions which virtually destroyed Disney's ability to do their own quality feature animation and compete with Pixar head-on.

C. 1) they didn't sell it off, 2) you have no idea what the business arrangement is and so to label "competition" assumes facts not in evidence, and 3) whether it is easier for Disney to bring the service that FS is providing or not also assumes facts not in evidence.

First, whether they sell the land (which they probably are as evidenced by taking it out of FCID) or have some other long-term lease or similar arrangement, it's now land that's not available for some other Disney development. Second, how can you say that allowing another hotel and timeshare operator to open up on the property isn't bringing in the competition, vs. Disney developing it's own luxury property. Third, the fact that we can't assume that Disney can provide exemplary customer service is just sad.

 

[DancingBear]

Similarly situated companies (like Disney & FS) enter into joint ventures quite regularly that are mutually beneficial and do not consititute surrender to a competitor.

Companies do this when they're entering new markets or new product lines, etc. Disney, which has a supposed flagship luxury resort in the Grand Floridian (which has never maintained the four star status they were supposedly seeking), is bringing Four Seasons right onto their property!

 

[MassJester]

Companies do this when they're entering new markets or new product lines, etc. Disney, which has a supposed flagship luxury resort in the Grand Floridian (which has never maintained the four star status they were supposedly seeking), is bringing Four Seasons right onto their property!

I don't agree. Companies, like mine, do it when it's profitable and convenient and supports long term plans. New market or not.